[LS]

A lot---mostly little. He gets names, dates wrong. My biggest problem with his interpretations deals with economic issues. He still blames the Great Crash on "overspeculation," despite a lot of economic evidence to the contrary. He doesn't tell a very consistent economic story, if you will, beginning with the 1830s, where he misses the Bank War.

I think he misses the real significance of the 1950s; and, of course, stops sooner than we do.

[Future Snake Eater]

I think he misses the real significance of the 1950s; and, of course, stops sooner than we do.

Do you find it difficult to detach yourself from such current history as the War on Terror for analytical purposes?

[rwfromkansas]

What caused the crash in your opinion?

[goldstategop]

Paul Johnson's treatment of American history on the whole is fair and sympathetic. One can disagree with some of his interpretations but then its perfectly in the nature of historians to have their own take on how and why certain events happened.